Moral discourse in general practitioners' accounts of obesity communication.

Obesity is not addressed with a large proportion of patients presenting in general practice. An increasing body of evidence suggests that health professionals view body weight as a sensitive topic to include in routine consultations and face barriers in initiating weight loss discussions. This study examined the discursive power relations that shape how general practitioners (GPs) understand and talk about obesity using a novel methodology to elicit responses from GPs about raising the topic of weight. Twenty GPs from the South West of England reflected upon novel trigger films simulating doctor-patient interactions, in which a doctor either acknowledged or ignored their patient's body weight. Underpinned by a discourse analytic approach, our findings suggest that GPs both reproduce and resist moral discourse surrounding body weight. They construct obesity as an individual behavioural problem whilst simultaneously drawing on socio-cultural discourse which positions body weight as central to social identity, situating obesity within a context of stigma and positioning patients as powerless to lose weight. Our findings highlight a need for increased reflexivity about competing discursive frameworks at play during medical consultations about obesity, which we suggest, contribute to increased tension and powerlessness for GPs. Trigger films are an innovative method to elicit information and discuss competing discourses.

Ambassadors of hope, research pioneers and agents of change-individuals' expectations and experiences of taking part in a randomised trial of an innovative health technology: longitudinal qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: While a growing body of research has explored why people take part in clinical trials, this research has not considered how people's understandings, motivations and agendas might influence their conduct during a trial. This is an important area of enquiry because it is now widely recognised that an intervention might lead to different clinical outcomes when delivered as part of a trial than when implemented in routine clinical practice; however, the reasons for this are not fully understood. METHODS/DESIGN: We interviewed 24 individuals who took part in a trial of an innovative health technology under development for people with type 1 diabetes which automatically regulates blood glucose: the closed-loop system. Participants were interviewed following randomisation to a closed-loop and at trial closeout. RESULTS: Participants provided complex agendas for taking part in which altruistic and self-interested considerations were often inseparable. Many described belonging to a wider diabetes community and being beneficiaries of others' participation in research and how this had given rise to attendant citizenship obligations. Participants also shared the excitement and pride they experienced from contributing to research which situated them at the forefront of technological innovation and enabled them to present themselves to others, by virtue of their trial participation, as ambassadors of hope and research pioneers. Given their desire to support the progression of a potentially life-changing technology, and be part of that innovation, participants, at follow-up, described having made extra effort during the trial. Specifically, participants described having been more focused on their diabetes management to help create conditions in which the closed-loop could work most effectively to optimize their blood glucose control. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings contribute a new dimension to understandings of trial effects; specifically, we argue that, to aid interpretation of trial outcomes, participants' understandings and motivations for participation need to be considered. We highlight the potential pertinence of our findings in the contemporary era of bio-citizenship where, increasingly, people are driving research agendas and see themselves as co-producers of knowledge. We also recommend a new concept be introduced into the literature-'the altruselfish agenda'-to recognise potential inseparability of self-interested and altruistic motivations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02523131 . Registered on 14 August 2015.

Participants' Experiences of, and Views About, Daytime Use of a Day-and-Night Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Real Life Settings: Longitudinal Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore individuals' experiences of daytime use of a day-and-night hybrid closed-loop system, their information and support needs, and their views about how future systems could be improved. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twenty-four adults, adolescents, and parents were interviewed before using a hybrid day-and-night closed-loop system and 3 months later, data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Participants praised the closed loop's ability to respond to high and low blood glucose in ways which extended beyond their own capabilities and to act as a safety net and mop up errors, such as when a mealtime bolus was forgotten or unplanned activity was undertaken. Participants also described feeling less burdened by diabetes as a consequence and more able to lead flexible, spontaneous lives. Contrary to their initial expectations, and after trust in the system had been established, most individuals wanted opportunities to collaborate with the closed loop to optimize its effectiveness. Such individuals expressed a need to communicate information, such as when routines changed or to indicate different intensities of physical activity. While individuals valued frequent contact with staff in the initial month of use, most felt that their long-term support needs would be no greater than when using an insulin pump. CONCLUSIONS: While participants reported substantial benefits to using the closed loop during the day, they also identified ways in which the technology could be refined and education and training tailored to optimize effective use. Our findings suggest that mainstreaming this technology will not necessarily lead to increased demands on clinical staff.

Assessing the effectiveness of a 3-month day-and-night home closed-loop control combined with pump suspend feature compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in youths and adults with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a randomised parallel study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite therapeutic advances, many individuals with type 1 diabetes are unable to achieve tight glycaemic target without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. The objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a 3-month day-and-night home closed-loop glucose control combined with a pump suspend feature, compared with sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy in youths and adults with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study adopts an open-label, multi-centre, multi-national (UK and USA), randomised, single-period, parallel design and aims for 84 randomised patients. Participants are youths (6-21 years) or adults (>21 years) with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy and suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.5% (58 mmol/mol) and ≤10% (86 mmol/mol)). Following a 4-week run-in period, eligible participants will be randomised to a 3-month use of automated closed-loop insulin delivery combined with pump suspend feature or to sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome is the time spent in the target glucose range from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L based on continuous glucose monitoring levels during the 3-month free-living phase. Secondary outcomes include HbA1c at 3 months, mean glucose, time spent below and above target; time with glucose levels <3.5 and <2.8 mmol/L; area under the curve when sensor glucose is <3.5 mmol/L, time with glucose levels >16.7 mmol/L, glucose variability; total, basal and bolus insulin dose and change in body weight. Participants' and their families' perception in terms of lifestyle change, daily diabetes management and fear of hypoglycaemia will be evaluated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics/institutional review board approval has been obtained. Before screening, all participants/guardians will be provided with oral and written information about the trial. The study will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02523131; Pre-results.

Raising the topic of weight in general practice: perspectives of GPs and primary care nurses.

OBJECTIVE: To explore general practitioners' (GPs) and primary care nurses' perceived barriers to raising the topic of weight in general practice. DESIGN: A qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). 34 semistructured interviews were conducted to explore views, opinions and experiences of initiating a discussion about weight. Content and thematic analyses were used to analyse the interview transcripts. SETTING: General practices located in one primary care trust in the South West of England. PARTICIPANTS: 17 GPs and 17 nurses aged between 32 and 66 years. The modal age range for GPs was 30-39 years and for nurses, 40-49 years. RESULTS: Barriers were synthesised into three main themes: (1) limited understanding about obesity care, (2) concern about negative consequences, and (3) having time and resources to raise a sensitive topic. Most barriers were related to raising the topic in more routine settings, rather than when dealing with an associated medical condition. GPs were particularly worried about damaging their relationship with patients and emphasised the need to follow their patient's agenda. CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty about obesity, concerns about alienating patients and feeling unable to raise the topic within the constraints of a 10 min consultation, is adding to the reluctance of GPs and nurses to broach the topic of weight. Addressing these concerns through training or by providing evidence of effective interventions that are feasible to deliver within consultations may lead to greater practitioner engagement and willingness to raise the topic.